scholarly journals Oxfam GB Statement on Modern Slavery for the financial year 2019/20

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Brill ◽  
Beck Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supply Chains ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
Initial Response ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Public Statement ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

The UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires organizations with a turnover of over £36m to make a public statement on the steps they are taking to identify and prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. Oxfam GB advocated for this legislation to be enacted. In this, our fifth statement, we share our progress against the three-year objectives set last year, which focus on corporate responsibility governance, human rights due diligence and inclusion of our country programmes. Due to the particularly devastating impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, we have added a section to highlight our initial response in March 2020, which fell under this reporting period.

Establishing a Corporate Responsibility Ombudsman: Enhancing remedy through state-based non-judicial mechanisms?

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-122
Author(s):  
Juho Saloranta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Export Credit ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Credit Financing ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

This article assesses the efficiency of non-judicial grievance mechanisms in providing victims of corporate human rights violations with improved access to remedy. As no such mechanism is currently available, this article formulates a proposal for a new mechanism in the form of a corporate responsibility ombudsman, which would offer a great deal of flexibility as well as being an inexpensive, expeditious and informal manner of dealing with such issues. The article argues in favour of utilizing states’ regulatory arsenal to improve victims’ access to remedy extraterritorially. Based on recent international developments, I elaborate approaches to human rights due diligence regulation and export credit financing by means of two corporate responsibility ombudsman proposals. In relation to these proposals, I divide the effectiveness criteria of Principle 31 of the United Nations Guiding Principles into three main categories: empowerment, investigation and enforcement. Since obtaining sufficient evidence is of paramount to those seeking remedies for violations of corporate responsibility, states should bestow quasi-judicial powers on corporate responsibility ombudsmen to achieve efficiency, which could also create legitimacy. This article provides decision-makers and scholars with insights into how access to remedy could be synchronized with the momentum of human rights due diligence legislation in the European Union and beyond.

Implementing the New UN Corporate Human Rights Framework: Implications for Corporate Law, Governance, and Regulation

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Muchlinski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Corporate Law ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Corporate Managers ◽  
Rights Issues ◽  
Oriented Approach ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

ABSTRACT:The UN Framework on Human Rights and Business comprises the State’s duty to protect human rights, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and the duty to remedy abuses. This paper focuses on the corporate responsibility to respect. It considers how to overcome obstacles, arising out of national and international law, to the development of a legally binding corporate duty to respect human rights. It is argued that the notion of human rights due diligence will lead to the creation of binding legal duties and that principles of corporate and tort law can be adapted to this end. Furthermore, recent legal developments accept an “enlightened shareholder value” approach allowing corporate managers to consider human rights issues when making decisions. The responsibility to respect involves adaptation of shareholder based corporate governance towards a more stakeholder oriented approach and could lead to the development of a new, stakeholder based, corporate model.

The corporate responsibility to respect human rights: a status review

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 542-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Methven O'Brien ◽  
Sumithra Dhanarajan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Corporate Accountability ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Civil Society Organisations ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss a wide range of significant developments that have emerged in the wake of the UNs endorsement of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPs) in June 2011. In particular, the paper offers a preliminary assessment of how the GPs’ corporate responsibility to respect human rights has been interpreted and to what extent it has been operationalised through government action, business behaviour and the praxis of other social actors. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a comprehensive assessment of a number of key developments related to Pillar 2 of the GPs – concerned with the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. More specifically, the paper considers a range of elements relating to corporate human rights due diligence, including: establishing a corporate human rights policy; the undertaking of human rights impact assessment; integrating findings of impact assessment, and; corporate human rights reporting. Findings – Based on the assessment of recent developments and initiatives, the paper suggests that the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, as expressed in Pillar 2 of the GPs, embodies the culmination of significant progress in the sphere of corporate accountability. In doing so, the paper documents a plethora of innovations in regulation and praxis, led by actors in government and the corporate sector, civil society organisations, labour unions and others, in the areas of human rights due diligence, impact assessment and reporting. Yet overall, change is slow and partial and the results achieved are still unsatisfactory. Severe business-related human rights abuses remain endemic in many industry sectors and in many countries. Research limitations/implications – The implementation of the GPs is at a key stage of development, with a multitude of initiatives and actors attempting to develop and influence new forms of corporate governance. This paper provides an overview and assessment of these key developments. Originality/value – This paper provides an important assessment and synthesis of key developments related to corporate responsibility for human rights.

scholarly journals Business, Human Rights and Climate Due Diligence: Understanding the Responsibility of Banks

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (15) ◽  
pp. 8391
Author(s):  
Chiara Macchi ◽  
Nadia Bernaz
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Climate Change Impacts ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Form Part ◽  
Normative Standard ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

Under the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), banks, like all businesses, have a responsibility to respect human rights and to carry out human rights due diligence. Although climate due diligence is not explicitly included in the UNGPs, tackling an enterprise’s direct and indirect climate change impacts is arguably a dimension of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and should form part of the human rights due diligence process. At present, it is unclear how such responsibility applies to banks, whose contribution to climate change is mostly indirect. This article addresses the research question: how should the law be interpreted to form a coherent climate due diligence standard for banks? To address it, the article first maps out the climate responsibility of banks under international soft law standards and assesses privately developed guidance. It then elucidates the emerging concept of climate due diligence, reading climate change responsibilities into the now well-established corporate responsibility to respect human rights as authoritatively elaborated in the UNGPs. Finally, it explains how such normative standard applies to banks and unpacks the key elements that a bank’s climate due diligence process should include.

Should Australia be Embracing the Modern Slavery Model of Regulation?

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid Landau ◽  
Shelley Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Effective Means ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Corporate Accountability ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
The Third ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Worker Exploitation ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

Australia is following in the footsteps of the UK and US and embracing the discourse and regulatory technologies associated with modern slavery regulation. This paper offers a critical perspective on this development. It begins with a brief account of the concept's rise to prominence, and discusses the political economy in which it is embedded. It then explores some of the advantages, as well as the pitfalls, associated with the frame, and its associated regulatory approaches, techniques and discourse. The authors raise three broad sets of concerns. The first goes to the danger of exclusively focusing on criminal justice responses to penalise and deter those who practice modern slavery while neglecting other approaches that may help address the causes of the phenomenon. The second set of concerns goes to the tendency to exaggerate the transformative potential of one of the dominant regulatory responses in this area: the mandatory corporate supply chain reporting provision. The third set of concerns relate to the implications of addressing issues of worker exploitation and mistreatment through a modern slavery and human trafficking approach rather than through other well established and newer regulatory means. To support the third argument, the authors compare the modern slavery approach with two alternate approaches: labour regulation and human rights due diligence. The authors emphasise the need for vigilance to ensure that the embracement of a modern slavery frame does not shift attention (and resources) away from more thorough and effective means of securing greater corporate accountability for labour standards in supply chains.

Modern slavery and transparency in supply chains: the role of business

2019 ◽  
pp. 187-218
Author(s):  
Colleen Theron
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Supply Chains ◽  
Value Chain ◽  
Mandatory Reporting ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Voluntary Reporting ◽  
Reporting Requirements ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
The Uk

This chapter explores how business is implicated by modern slavery, and the salient requirements of the UK Modern Slavery Act (MSA) transparency in supply chain provision, in the context of growing mandatory reporting requirements for business to report transparently on their supply chain impacts. It also examines how business has responded to the MSA. It concludes with some practical steps that business can take to address the risk of modern slavery in its supply chains. Among these are ensuring that top management is supportive of tackling modern slavery in the organisation and supply chains; understanding how these obligations fit within any wider mandatory or voluntary reporting undertaken by the business; putting policies in place; establishing robust due-diligence processes; mapping the supply and value chain of the business.

scholarly journals Neglecting the Proactive Aspect of Human Rights Due Diligence? A Critical Appraisal of the EU’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive as a Pillar One Avenue for Promoting Pillar Two Action

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin BUHMANN
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Communication Process ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Governmental Regulation ◽  
Regulatory Strategies ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

AbstractFirms’ human rights due diligence (HRDD) and communication on their human rights impacts are not only elements in the Corporate Responsibility to Respect human rights (Pillar Two), but also to be promoted by States as part of their State Duty to Protect (Pillar One) through regulatory strategies aiming at shaping business conduct. Analysing the EU’s 2014 Non-Financial Reporting Directive as an example of governmental regulation for promoting responsible business conduct, the article discusses conditions for HRDD and reporting as a communication process to stimulate organizational change in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles to avoid harm, including through affected-stakeholder engagement. Applying socio-legal regulatory theory along with organizational and accounting literature, the article finds that the Directive’s predominant focus on ex-post measures appears to be a neglected opportunity to induce ex-ante organizational learning and changed business conduct to prevent adverse human rights impact. It offers recommendations for regulators and stakeholders for stronger regulation.

Using the risk-based approach to curb modern slavery in the supply chain

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-322
Author(s):  
Ehi Eric Esoimeme
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Supply Chain ◽  
Supply Chains ◽  
Money Laundering ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Uk

Purpose This paper aims to critically examine the modern slavery statements of Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc. to determine the level of effectiveness of the risk assessment and risk mitigation measures of both companies and provide recommendations on how the risk assessment and risk mitigation measures of both companies could be strengthened. Design/methodology/approach The analysis took the form of a desk study, which analysed various documents and reports such as the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Transparency in Supply Chains) Regulations 2015, the UK Guidance issued under Section 54(9) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the 2018 Global Slavery Index, funded by Forrest’s Walk Free Foundation, the Anglo American Plc. Modern Slavery Statement of 2017/18, the Marks and Spencer Modern Slavery Statement of 2017/18, the Financial Action Task Force Guidance on the Risk Based Approach to Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High Level Principles and Procedures) 2007, the Financial Action Task Force International Standards On Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation (The FATF Recommendations) 2012, the Australia Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No. 1) (as amended), the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada Guidance on the risk-based approach to combatting money laundering and terrorist financing 2017 and the Central Bank of Nigeria (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism in Banks and Other Financial Institutions in Nigeria) Regulations, 2013. Findings This paper determined that the standard due diligence measures and the enhanced due diligence measures of Anglo American Plc. are not effective enough to identify/assess the risk(s) of modern slavery in the supply chains reason being that Anglo American Plc. does not use diverse methods/methodologies for her due diligence programme. This paper, however, determined that the standard due diligence measures and the enhanced due diligence measures of Marks and Spencer Group Plc. are effective enough to identify/assess the risk(s) of modern slavery in the supply chains because Marks and Spencer adopts diverse methods/methodologies for her due diligence programme. This paper also determined that both Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc. adopt diverse methods for the monitoring of their corrective action plans which are designed to mitigate the modern slavery risk(s) associated with high-risk suppliers. For example, Anglo American Plc. monitors anti-modern slavery compliance with the use of both internal Anglo American teams and third-party auditors to ensure that the identified issues are adequately addressed. Research limitations/implications This paper focuses on Section 54 of the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Modern Slavery Statements of Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc for the year 2017/18. Originality/value Several articles have been published on this topic. Among them, is an article by Stefan Gold, Alexander Trautrims and Zoe Trodd titled “Modern slavery challenges to supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 Issue: 5, pp.485-494 and an article by Stephen John New titled “Modern slavery and the supply chain: the limits of corporate social responsibility?”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 Issue: 6, pp.697-707. The article by Stefan Gold, Alexander Trautrims and Zoe Trodd drew attention to the challenges modern slavery poses to supply chain management. Although the article briefly talked about the risk-based approach to monitoring supply chains for slavery, it did not discuss about the due diligence measures that UK firms are required to apply during risk identification and risk assessment, and the risk mitigation measures that will address the risk(s) that have been identified. The article by Stephen John New examines legal attempts to encourage supply chain transparency and the use of corporate social responsibility methods. Though the article mentions the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, more attention was paid to the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act [S.B. 657], State of California, 2010), enacted in 2011 and in effect from 2012. The article analysed the California Act without critically discussing the risk assessment procedures for UK companies. In addition to discussing the different stages of the risk assessment/risk management process, this paper will examine the modern slavery statements of Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc. This paper will provide recommendations on how the risk assessment/risk mitigation measures of both companies could be strengthened. This is the only paper to adopt this kind of approach. The analysis/recommendations in this paper will help UK companies to design effective due diligence procedures for their supply chain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document